A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
Think it would be more correct to say, you found a fatal collision involving an SUV. There was little in the article about cause IIRC, including the relevance of the vehicle type.
But you got to use a dead child as a prop/cudgel, which I suppose was the main thing.
But cars are faster than SUVs and work vans? Speed kills, no?
All full size US pick ups not available in Ireland. Try again.
And proof that the size of vehicle makes little difference when a cyclist can kill a pedestrian.
Yes, I found a fatal collision involving a child and an SUV, and mentioned it in response to a statement that 'SUVs aren't ramming children'. I know you're as keen to sweep child deaths on the run under the carpet as you are to sweep all deaths on the road under the carpet, but that's not really a great idea.
A pedestrian can kill a cyclist, but either way, vehicle size matters.
No one suggested that SUVs are the only vehicles that can cause harm or death to small children.
There's a difference in need between a bin lorry and a Ranelagh tractor.
Cool Jeep!
But your article, as I recall, didn't say anything about the circumstances of the collision. So apportioning blame to the vehicle or the driver was inappropriate.
BTW all I do is post facts and maybe some conclusions based on the evidence. Your response, it seems, is to pimp dead children to score cheap points.
Perhaps you could clarify where I apportioned blame to the vehicle or the driver?
In a collision, what's safer regarding the occupants, a mini or a volvo v60?
When you said:
The point of the post is to answer the suggestion that children are not getting killed by SUVs with an example of how a child was fairly recently killed by an SUV.
Emphasis mine.
Did you miss my question? I asked where I apportioned blame to the vehicle or the driver?
You said the child was killed by an SUV. Seems clear to me.
Why introduce it then?
The child was killed by an SUV. That's a statement of fact, not an allocation of blame.
Because the earlier poster stated that children were not getting rammed by SUVs.
The volvo
In a collision with a pedestrian which vehicle gives the pedestrian the highest chance of survival/not getting seriously injured?
I’d say much the same. The Mini is much the same frontal size as a V60. The V60 is longer as it’s an estate. Not sure what point you’re trying to make?
I'm not talking about pedestrians. If someone wants to buy a car that provides the best safety for the occupants, then that's also a decision in why people might consider SUVs
Weight is an important factor, that was my point.
Feck pedestrians then? My safety is first in my car is that it? I refuse to believe thats the right attitude to have regarding safety of a vehicle. It cannot be so.
I actually meant to say xc60 because it's an SUV, but anyway, the V60 scores a star above the mini, basically safer, so my point is people might deem something like an SUV a necessity in terms of their safety.
Yes obviously, my family's safety is my number one priority when I make choices.
Understood. Yes, I strongly believe some people do buy SUVS as they perceive them to be safer.
Its not perception, it's facts,.
Well that's disingenuous; what they mentioned was children getting rammed by SUV's in Ranelagh. You scoured the internet for a suitable story and found duplicitously posted it as if it suits. The story you found was in relation to a 4x4 being used for agri purposes in a rural area.
Safer for the occupant which in turn forces/encourages other road users to upgrade to an equal or bigger size SUV and the cycle keeps going on and on...
Regardless of what you believe you should be able to choose for a vehicle and all that stuff. You cannot deny my above point. When does it end?
The poster you quoted was nowhere near as specific as that. The poster never claimed that SUVs are never involved in collisions with children, only that in their view, it was not common.
This is very likely to be correct. For reference, here is the post you quoted originally, it contained words like "safer" and "I haven't seen too many."
Of course, to address what this poster actually said, and not some pathetic strawman, you would have to deal in facts instead of pimping dead children to score cheap points. 🤨
I reject your assertion that people were claiming children weren't being killed by SUVs, that's not what was said. You're twisting that other poster's words and using a tragedy to score points on the internet. Disgusting is right.
But he didn't say "SUVs aren't ramming children", now did he? He actually sad much more than that. You've chopped off part of the sentence. You're deliberately misquoting him to justify using a dead child as a stick with which to beat others.
Desperately sorry to hear that. Sorry for your loss.
